As for me, since no Ecumenical Council condemned it, I will most likely hold to the more literal interpretation as a theologoumen and will wait it out for the Orthodox to either support or officially condemn it. Until then it falls under "sententia communis" doctrine

I think you are misunderstanding what Ecumenical Councils are for. They don't exist to compile lists of heresies to condemn. If heresies can be weeded out without an Ecumenical Council, they won't be condemned. As several of us have shown, many or most Church Fathers were against Chiliasm. The belief was never accepted by the Church in any case.

Waiting for an Ecumenical Council to condemn something is akin to saying you won't accept a judge's ruling on a traffic ticket unless you can appeal to the Supreme Court. Things can be handled at a lower level. The final court of appeal need not review every case for a definitive ruling.

But that is neither here nor there, as Chiliasm is condemned in the Nicene Creed. While you may want to play word games to make "and his kingdom shall have no end" not apply to Chiliasm, the fact is that's what the Fathers of that Council intended to condemn with that clause.

But that is neither here nor there, as Chiliasm is condemned in the Nicene Creed. While you may want to play word games to make "and his kingdom shall have no end" not apply to Chiliasm, the fact is that's what the Fathers of that Council intended to condemn with that clause.

Show me, Bogdan, a statement of a Church Father that backs up the assertion that the phrase "and his kingdom shall have no end" was inserted to specifically condemn chiliasm.

But that is neither here nor there, as Chiliasm is condemned in the Nicene Creed. While you may want to play word games to make "and his kingdom shall have no end" not apply to Chiliasm, the fact is that's what the Fathers of that Council intended to condemn with that clause.

My understanding of that part of the creed is that it was meant to condemn Marcellus of Ankyra who was a modalist. Essentially the Son would hand the kingdom over to the Father in the end. The creedal statement though is that "His kingdom shall have no end" and therefore also Christ shall have no end. It was a backdoor way of opposing Marcellus without condemning him since he was supported by Athanasius. There were attempts by Basil to get Athanasius to condemn Marcellus but he refused. I think that eventually he did call Marcellus on it and eventually Marcellus rejected modalism.

But that is neither here nor there, as Chiliasm is condemned in the Nicene Creed. While you may want to play word games to make "and his kingdom shall have no end" not apply to Chiliasm, the fact is that's what the Fathers of that Council intended to condemn with that clause.

Show me, Bogdan, a statement of a Church Father that backs up the assertion that the phrase "and his kingdom shall have no end" was inserted to specifically condemn chiliasm.

K

I got that from Fr Andrew Stephen Damick's "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" podcast, but I can attempt to dig something up. But it doesn't matter, because it still was not accepted by the Church in any official way. I and others have already provided quotes from Fathers that condemn chiliasm by name.

"As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ."

This, however, directly conflicts with Rev 20:3: "and threw the devil into the abyss, whch he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed."

The devil has led nations astray so this idea that Rev 20:3 refers to the period between Christ's death and Second coming does not hold.

Another poster, appologies to whom this was, stated I can believe in Chiliasm as long as I don't teach it or ask other Orthodox to believe this. Afterall it's not heretical, merely discouraged.

Ukiemeister,

Thanks for posting the Fr. Rose remarks. I was half wrong by implying he believed in chiliasm and creationism. Though he did believe in 6 literal day creation, even though the Orthodox Church wavers on this currently.

K

I have to agree with Kaste on this one, to suggest that the devil was "bound" at Messiah's resurrection is in direct conflict with what St. Peter wrote here, years after Messiah ascended into Heaven:

{1 Peter 5:8} Be watchful and remember, because your enemy, Satan, roars as a lion and walks about and seeks whom he may swallow.

A person who is "bound" cannot walk or do anything - they are powerless, Satan has been defeated but he is not powerless, he wouldn't still be trying deceive the nations if he truely acknowledges his defeat. Satan has been deceiving the nations ever since the Cross and is still deceiving them today, in fact if anything, he's been even more determined to deceive them since Messiah's resurrection, because Messiah being the true light showed us the way, so now it's harder for Satan to keep mankind in the dark.

Consider this, if Satan has been bound all this time then how do we explain the biggest deception in human history, namely Islam? Or do we credit this to the angel Gabriel? The interesting thing the nations that have fallen prey to this deception are the "nations" specifically mentioned in Scripture by name (read the Prophets). So Satan has successfully deceived the nations, and therefore has not been bound yet, or perhaps the millenium officially ended in the 7th century? If 1000 years is symbolic for an unspecified time, which I feel is a valid interpretation, then if the "literal" period could equal more than 1000 years, then it stands to reason that it could also equal less than 1000 years. Islam was the first major deception to arise after the Apostolic age, all the other major world deceptions (like Hinduism & Buddahism) date before Messiah's 1st comming, and no other deception, either before or since, has equalled Islam in power, influence, number, brutality and sheer hatred against Christians and Jews.

I used to be a staunch Premillenialist, now I'm undecided. I need to study Amillenialism in greater detail before I form an official stance on it. I will say that when it comes to studying Eschatology chronologically, I'm not 100% satisfied with either position. I can't get all the pieces of the puzzle to fit with either, but I can get more pieces to fit with Premillenialism than with Amellinialism, but then again chronology isn't the only thing to consider in Eschotological study.

So far I see little evidence that Satan was ever bound, sure when the Church was established in Jerusalem and moved into the Greco-Roman world, Satan must've felt really beaten up with all them Church Fathers condemning all his attempts of raising heresies. But did that discourage him from his ultimate mission? Did he throw in the towel after that? No, he went "roaming through the earth and walking back and forth in it" among heathen nations till he made his way to Arabia and found the "opportunity of lifetime" - the result was his most successful brainchild ever, his greatest masterpiece.

For now I'm of the opinion that if the millenium hasn't began yet, then it ended 610 CE.

What I personally call "eastern amill" is different from alot of "amill" views you will see in the west. Just so you know......the interpretations in certain areas aren't always the same.

ICXC NIKA

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

"As for the "thousand-year reign," most of us take that to be tied with the binding of the devil, which occurred at the Harrowing of Hell. By rising from the tomb, Christ bound the devil, so that though he may tempt, and though humans may give in to that temptation, ultimately the devil cannot overcome the power of Christ."

This, however, directly conflicts with Rev 20:3: "and threw the devil into the abyss, whch he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray until the thousand years are completed."

The devil has led nations astray so this idea that Rev 20:3 refers to the period between Christ's death and Second coming does not hold.

I apologise. I was under the impression you actually wanted to know what the Orthodox believe. Now I see you just want to tell us we're wrong. Sorry for trying to provide you with information; you can rest assured I won't be making the same mistake again.

When you are raised in certain sola scriptura groups, it is hard to overlook certain super literal readings of a text.

He may eventually get over this just by simply looking at how Jesus and the Apostles mostly interpreted the Old Testament.

I know that helped me out alot........he just wants to be "faithful" to the text, but being faithful to the text may not be what he thinks it is.

Arius errored when it came to the word "created" in the Old Testament, and in modern times, the protestant Reformed Baptist John Macauther errored once in regards to the first chapter of Hebrews, in thinking that Jesus.....as th the Son.... didn't exist before the incarnation.

And so hermeneutics has something to do with it as well.

And so when posting to kaste, just keep these things in mind.........for he will be looking at the text in a way you may not.

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 12:11:44 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

You said: "Hey, as long as I can believe in a future Anti-christ/man of sin, with a future tribulation, as well as a future second coming, then I'm willing to give up pre-nicene chillism."

So Orthodox at least believe in these things?

Yes, some may talk about it in more sophisticated ways.........like the "already and not yet" paradigm, but to keep it simple........yes!

If you read the ancient chillites, then you should already know that they believed that alot of things were already fullfilled when the Jewish Temple of 70A.D. fell. Well, that idea isn't unique to them.......it's pretty much across the board in the ancient christian world.

And so the focus should be on chillism, and not on the issue of what was fullfilled vs what wasn't fulfilled.....for that will only get us sidetracked.

Quote

And also do they think "Christ's 1000 year reign" began in the 1st Century and goes until he returns? If so, how do Orthodox account for the period of the anti-Christ (which comes before Christ returns)?

I don't put a limit on Christ's reign, for the creed says:

Quote:"He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end."

So why put an "end" to it......"like the second coming".......if His reign has no end?

Quote

...That would conflict with Christ's reign that according to the allogorizors began in first century and continues uninterrupted until His return.

I appreciate your sharing, especially the part that the Mysteries are important.

K

Did you know that Jesus and the Apostles allegorized the Old Testament alot? And why are you upset with us being allegorizers of a Scripture text filled with allegory?

And how could it conflict with Christ's reign when His reign is eternal? Don't forget............eastern amill isn't necessarily the same as it's western counterparts.

Oh, and anytime Kaste, and yes the Divine Mysteries are important. Don't allow the semi-atheistic, and humanistic views of Zwinglyianism mislead you on this.

How was your thanksgiving? Take care!

ICXC NIKA

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Yes, bogdan, please substantiate your claim that the phrase "and His kingdom shall have no end" was inserted into the Nicene Creed specifically to condemn Chiliasm. Jimmy has stated he understands it to have been inserted for a different reason.

It does matter because simply showing Church Fathers opposed to Chiliasm does not hold the weight as a Father who (especially as some on this forum remarked without substantiating their claims) was at the Ecumenical Council, such as Gregory the Theologian, and wrote that the phrase was inserted to combat chiliasm. If this is true, then you will win me over. If not I will consider it acceptable as a theologoumena.

Jnorm, 1) so you're saying Orthodox can believe the whole bit about the Anti-Christ taking over the world, a real beast healing its wound to fool the world and get universal worship, and have people stamp the mark of the beast on their forheads and a great war that ensues when Christ comes back just before the last judgement.......but just no belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ?

2) When do you believe the allegorical 1000 year reign began? I asked this before since if it began already, Rev 20:3,4 gets in the way along with other difficulties. Or perhaps you believe that allegorical 1000 years occurs after the Last Judgement?

continuing in another post because of the constant jumping of the text box.....

I know I have quotes and resources on my blog about it, but I'm tired right now, and so, I'll post it in the coming days.

Quote

4) Also you say the early Chillites thought the events in Revelation already occurred? Can you tell me who?

No, I said that they tought that some things were fullfilled when the Jewish Temple of 70A.D. fell, but that wasn't just their belief, but a belief held in common by all early christians back then.

Quote

5) How is eastern and western amill different?

It's different in some of the details, to be honest, I doubt if we even have a name to describe our view. "eastern amill" is what I call it.

When I was protestant, I recall arguing with full-preterists, and other postmillers....well, I still argue with them now, but you don't have all that over here.

There are western views that reject a future 2nd coming of Christ( full-preterists), a future tribulation( some post millers)......oh, I am friends with some western amillers that reject a future tribulation.

And I have friends that reject not only a future tribulation, but also a future man of sin/anti-christ.

Many of them reject all that, and so, you shouldn't always assume that the east is 100%ly the same as the west, because they may not be. And in this case, no, they are not.

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 02:34:29 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Yes, bogdan, please substantiate your claim that the phrase "and His kingdom shall have no end" was inserted into the Nicene Creed specifically to condemn Chiliasm. Jimmy has stated he understands it to have been inserted for a different reason.

It does matter because simply showing Church Fathers opposed to Chiliasm does not hold the weight as a Father who (especially as some on this forum remarked without substantiating their claims) was at the Ecumenical Council, such as Gregory the Theologian, and wrote that the phrase was inserted to combat chiliasm. If this is true, then you will win me over. If not I will consider it acceptable as a theologoumena.

I am not finding anything yet, but will continue to look. I do trust that Fr Andrew knows what he's talking about though.

I think you are looking at this in very black-and-white, legalistic terms that are alien to Orthodoxy. Orthodox beliefs do not generally come in neat categories that were endlessly defined by councils. Ecumenical Councils were called only when major heresies could not be wiped out any other way (there is a reason there were only 7 [or so]). If a heresy can be suppressed at lower levels, it is.

In my experience, this seems to be a common ploy that Protestants use. When arguing, they set the bar unreasonably or impossibly high, then claim victory when none of the evidence is good enough for their unreasonable standards.

The Church operates on consensus and faith, not just carefully-crafted legal definitions. Chiliasm may have been believed by a few Fathers in the very early Church (mainly because of the Gnostics), but that does not make it right or true. Many more and recent Fathers have taken Chiliasm apart, and the consensus of the Church has fallen against it, if only because it exists nowhere in scripture aside from Revelation 20 -- a book we consider to be almost completely allegorical.

You may consider it theologumena, but the Church considers it a misunderstanding and bad theology, if not heresy.

I'll keep looking, but I think it is unreasonable to base this belief on whether or not an Ecumenical Council condemned it.

I don't care if you agree with me. But if you dismiss out of hand any answer that doesn't meet your pre-conceived notion, as you are obviously doing here, I don't see the point in discussing anything with you. Such behaviour is usually called "trolling," and it's frowned upon on most forums.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

The Church operates on consensus and faith, not just carefully-crafted legal definitions. Chiliasm may have been believed by a few Fathers in the very early Church (mainly because of the Gnostics), but that does not make it right or true. Many more and recent Fathers have taken Chiliasm apart, and the consensus of the Church has fallen against it, if only because it exists nowhere in scripture aside from Revelation 20 -- a book we consider to be almost completely allegorical.

Yah you know...the more and more I think about this the more I wonder when exactly Revelations was accepted to be part of the cannon of scripture. I didn't think it was accepted until MUCH later (perhaps 4th century?)...

The Church operates on consensus and faith, not just carefully-crafted legal definitions. Chiliasm may have been believed by a few Fathers in the very early Church (mainly because of the Gnostics), but that does not make it right or true. Many more and recent Fathers have taken Chiliasm apart, and the consensus of the Church has fallen against it, if only because it exists nowhere in scripture aside from Revelation 20 -- a book we consider to be almost completely allegorical.

Yah you know...the more and more I think about this the more I wonder when exactly Revelations was accepted to be part of the cannon of scripture. I didn't think it was accepted until MUCH later (perhaps 4th century?)...

Something to think about as a factor...

[edited to fix tags]

That's a great point. I think Revelation wasn't really accepted in the East until the 5th century.

One of the main arguments for not including it was (surprise, surprise) it was too difficult to interpret correctly and led too many people into heresy because of that. I'm not one to question the canon, but we can see that has continued through the centuries.

The Church operates on consensus and faith, not just carefully-crafted legal definitions. Chiliasm may have been believed by a few Fathers in the very early Church (mainly because of the Gnostics), but that does not make it right or true. Many more and recent Fathers have taken Chiliasm apart, and the consensus of the Church has fallen against it, if only because it exists nowhere in scripture aside from Revelation 20 -- a book we consider to be almost completely allegorical.

Yah you know...the more and more I think about this the more I wonder when exactly Revelations was accepted to be part of the cannon of scripture. I didn't think it was accepted until MUCH later (perhaps 4th century?)...

Something to think about as a factor...

[edited to fix tags]

That's a great point. I think Revelation wasn't really accepted in the East until the 5th century.

One of the main arguments for not including it was (surprise, surprise) it was too difficult to interpret correctly and led too many people into heresy because of that. I'm not one to question the canon, but we can see that has continued through the centuries.

Yah i know that...that's why i'm wondering about when it became part of the cannon. I think its a factor because if chiliasm was a real problem with Ireneus and Justin, then we have to see it as a wrong interpretation of maybe the wrong manuscript. Just something we havn't thought about yet...

An irrelevant comment perhaps, as I haven't been following this thread (have been away): chiliasm is very out-of-fashion among British Evangelicals, though it lingers on in the fringes; but is very common among American Evangelicals.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

An irrelevant comment perhaps, as I haven't been following this thread (have been away): chiliasm is very out-of-fashion among British Evangelicals, though it lingers on in the fringes; but is very common among American Evangelicals.

Yah but what version of Chiliasm, what does it say, etc. who knows what derivatives there have been made in protestantism. Would you like to bring up a possible concrete example we can take a look at?

I cannot speak about American Evangelicalism, though I suspect the beliefs are similar if not identical. As I understand it, chiliasm re-emerged in the mid-19th century and was popularised as part of the Dispensationalism set before readers of the Schofield Reference Bible, which attained very wide circulation. It was particularly espoused by the Brethren (Plymouth Brethren, Christian Brethren, whatever name) and adopted later by the Pentecostals. I believe that those two denominations held it almost to a man; but many others, including a good number of Anglicans, likewise held the same or similar views. The idea is that God, as it were, pressed the pause button on his programme with the Jews and opened the Gospel to the Gentiles, which is "the church age", extending from Pentecost till the Second Coming. Then God snatches away the church ("the Rapture") and resumes his programme for the Jews, in the form of the Millennium, or thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. People who hold these views have various time-tables for how the final seven years will unfold before Christ appears in glory.

I could go into further detail, but I am not persuaded it would be edifying or even accurate, seeing I do not hold chiliastic views myself; what might be worse, it probably wouldn't do justice to that system of belief, which would be unfair to those who do hold them. I read a book against Fundamentalism, by James Barr, an Oxford University theologian, and one of his interesting comments was that if one is going to be a Fundamentalist, then this system is the only one that can be consistently held.

Hitherto Cleopas and I have agreed 100%, I think, on all our posts; being American, he may well be "Pre-Mill" and could probably expound it better than I could. But this brief reply may give some idea of the views held by some Protestants.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

An irrelevant comment perhaps, as I haven't been following this thread (have been away): chiliasm is very out-of-fashion among British Evangelicals, though it lingers on in the fringes; but is very common among American Evangelicals.

Yes, bogdan, please substantiate your claim that the phrase "and His kingdom shall have no end" was inserted into the Nicene Creed specifically to condemn Chiliasm. Jimmy has stated he understands it to have been inserted for a different reason.

It does matter because simply showing Church Fathers opposed to Chiliasm does not hold the weight as a Father who (especially as some on this forum remarked without substantiating their claims) was at the Ecumenical Council, such as Gregory the Theologian, and wrote that the phrase was inserted to combat chiliasm. If this is true, then you will win me over. If not I will consider it acceptable as a theologoumena.

Jnorm, 1) so you're saying Orthodox can believe the whole bit about the Anti-Christ taking over the world, a real beast healing its wound to fool the world and get universal worship, and have people stamp the mark of the beast on their forheads and a great war that ensues when Christ comes back just before the last judgement.......but just no belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ?

2) When do you believe the allegorical 1000 year reign began? I asked this before since if it began already, Rev 20:3,4 gets in the way along with other difficulties. Or perhaps you believe that allegorical 1000 years occurs after the Last Judgement?

continuing in another post because of the constant jumping of the text box.....

I followed the thread, but didn't intervene until I read this post. I am really amazed of what your saying here. Since you belong to the "invisible church" which ISN'T the Orthodox Church, how do you think the opinion expressed in the Ecumenical councils of the Orthodox Church might be binding for you? We are NOT Orthodox, nor Catholic, so the contents of the Ecumenical Councils shouldn't be more infallible then the other councils. The ambiguity of your opinions regarding the identity of this "infallible church" is making my head explode: if you believe the ECs to be infallible, you must recognize that the authority of the Fathers assembled in them... but if you reject their consent, then it is like to say that the Fathers receive some extraordinary inspiration at the Councils to prevent them from error otherwise they would be just as fallible as any other man on Earth. Now, if you believe that the ECs are infallible by divine inspiration, you must prove it in Scriptures or in the ECs, which is impossible, and which means you are supporting the private inspiration of the ECs based on your own personal opinions, and not on the Apostolic Tradition as contained in the ECs and in the Holy Bible.I hope you would clarify this BEFORE continuing the discussions on the ECs.

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Alexander, you are welcome to read my thread "How long does it take to be confident in the Church's teachings?" and another titled "Ecumenical Councils". That will answer your questions. Suffice to say it's not as easy as simply accepting the authority of the Fathers that called the councils.

Chapter 20 says after this image of Christ coming down a battle ensues where the Dragon/Satan is locked into an abyss for a thousand years. Then it comes out again, and then finally the last judgment happens.

First off, please note the interpretation I favor as being a legitimate one, does not say Christ comes back multiple times but once, as stated above when He comes on a horse, and stays with us on earth.

Now how do Orthodox solve this part about Rev 19:11: Christ coming back, then locking Satan away for a long time, then letting him out followed by Last Judgment?

Chapter 20 says after this image of Christ coming down a battle ensues where the Dragon/Satan is locked into an abyss for a thousand years. Then it comes out again, and then finally the last judgment happens.

First off, please note the interpretation I favor as being a legitimate one, does not say Christ comes back multiple times but once, as stated above when He comes on a horse, and stays with us on earth.

Now how do Orthodox solve this part about Rev 19:11: Christ coming back, then locking Satan away for a long time, then letting him out followed by Last Judgment?

Do Orthodox say Rev 19:11 already happened?

The Orthodox do not read Revelation in Church, except on Great and Holy Saturday.

This thread is a demonstration of the wisdom of that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Orthodox do not read Revelation in Church, except on Great and Holy Saturday.

This thread is a demonstration of the wisdom of that.

That is unfortunate because "Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are those who listen to this prophetic message and heed what is written in it, for the appointed time is near."

Oh and that's taken from Rev 1:3.

This is an important book, and Orthodox can believe, as a theologumena, (as did Ss. Justin and Iranaeus) that after a great tribulation and rule of Anti-Christ, Jesus really truly will come back from the clouds on a horse and fight a great battle and bind Satan for a long time (perhaps even 1000 literal years), let him go for a short while, then conquer him once and for all just before the last judgment.

Jnorm, didn't you agree except for the literal thousand years part (which however you allow represents a long time)?

Resurrecting an old thread, I realize. But this issue has troubled me since reading through this thread. As a former Protestant, I was steeped in dispensational theology. Upon becoming Orthodox and learning that the Church condemns Chiliasm based on the clear words of the Nicene Creed, that was enough for me to abandon my dispensational eschatology. But now it seems the issue may not be as clear cut as I thought.

Here is what I believe Orthodoxy teaches, so correct me if I am wrong on any of these points:

1. It is wrong to apply a literal interpretation to years when interpreting eschatological teachings in the Bible. Orthodoxy teaches that "1,000 years" is symbolic for either a very long period of time or for eternity.

2. The "Great Tribulation" and the "Kingdom of Heaven" co-exist for the time being. Christians have been living in tribulation from the time of the Resurrection until the Second Coming. But during this time of Tribulation we also experience the Kingdom of Heaven on earth whenever and wherever the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in the world. Just as the Church militant co-exists and has fellowship with the Church triumphant.

3. There will eventually be an ultimate "antichrist" who will deceive many prior to the Second Coming of Our Lord. However, even now, we are living in the "last hour," many antichrists have already come [I John 2:18], and the devil is prowling the earth [I Peter 5:8].

4. It is reasonable to assume from Scripture that evil in the world and the persecution of Christians will increase prior to the Second Coming. However, it is also reasonable to assume from Scripture that we can hope to see the Church strengthened and the Faith multiplied even as evil and persecution increase.

5. The Orthodox eschatological focus is simply that Christ will come again and that His kingdom will have no end. His coming is imminent, and therefore we should live with the awareness of this constant expectation, hope, and reverential fear. To focus on specific time frames, to predict dates, or to try and identify who the antichrist will be only leads to confusion and distraction from the essential aspects of our Faith.